Meanwhile, the US added 336,000 jobs in September, more than double the estimates.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-job-growth-beats-expec...
https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-job-growth-beats-expec...
Full time jobs not only didn’t decrease, they increased more than part time jobs in actual terms.
Part time jobs for economic reasons decreased while part time jobs for non economic reasons went up slightly.
The big reported increase came from the establishment/business survey. That survey results in overcounting people working multiple jobs. And multiple job holders (also in table 9) jumped from 8,028 to 8,151, for 123k more people now working at least 2 jobs. So we saw a loss of full time jobs, a gain of part time jobs, and a gain of people working more than one job.
The IT sector has a slightly higher unemployment rate 4.3 than the headline rate 3.9. And there is a special note about the IT rate being specifically impacted by the tv industry strikes as the sector covering sound and film engineers makes up most of the IT unemployment number.
The industry that actually has a significantly higher rate is leisure and hospitality at 5.4.
Really? Sounds bad. Is that official stats?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/217787/unemployment-rate...
That part should raise serious questions about the validity of this metric.
Any taxpayer-funded or debt-funded government "job" is not a creator of real (in the economic sense) wealth.
Rather, such government "jobs" merely siphon off and consume real wealth generated by actually-productive market participants, and then permanently destroy that wealth.
Even worse, the process of destroying of that real wealth is often done in a way that then impedes the productivity of the real wealth creators, introducing a secondary and longer-lasting real economic loss.
Each government "job" added should be seen as a significant net loss to the overall economy.
Those government "jobs" are in effect just destroying the real output of some number of private sector jobs.
There's nothing overly special about an interstate-style highway network. It's essentially just a large number of roads covering a long distance that are connected together, with emphasis on driving speed.
The private sector is more than capable of planning, building, connecting, maintaining, and operating roads of all types, widths, and lengths.
I don't know where you are, but in Canada the various governments end up having to resort to the private sector anyway for highway-related projects.
It's government interference that prevents there from being more privately-build and operated highways. That's exactly the problem I was talking about in my earlier comment. Government "jobs" are dead weight on the real economy, only inhibiting those who are actually productive.
It exists because the 401 wasn't built with sufficient long-term capacity, even after it was widened significantly.
I wouldn't really consider the 407 a true "private" highway, though. It's more a case of the private sector rescuing the government from a typical government-created debacle, and last I heard, the highway is now majority-owned by the CPP Investment Board (a Crown corporation).
Have you ever actually driven on the 407, by any chance? It's a much nicer experience than the 401, although having to pay a toll while also paying significant taxes can be annoying. Under a proper system, there'd only be usage tolls, and no taxes involved.
How do you imagine increasing private ownership of roads would work? It's near-impossible to ever have true competition in the sector so market forces wouldn't work as they normally do. Where's the incentive to innovate? Where's the incentive to lower prices?
And good luck implementing a "proper" system where there are two tiers of citizens: The rich and the rest. That's just not a good recipe for the cohesiveness of society.